Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Renewable Energy Moratorium topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board declines to impose 90-day moratorium on wind and solar applications; planning review urged

3211625 · May 7, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Commissioners debated, then failed to adopt, an emergency 90-day resolution to temporarily freeze acceptance of wind and solar applications while the planning commission reviews zoning; several commissioners argued a moratorium requires evidence of imminent harm and formal process.

The Natrona County Board of Commissioners discussed a proposed emergency resolution (13-25) to temporarily freeze acceptance of wind and solar applications for 90 days while planning and zoning reviews county zoning language. A motion to adopt the moratorium was made but received no second and failed.

Supporters said the short pause would give planning and zoning time to address zoning gaps exposed by prior applications and an interim staffing shortage in planning. "It's not punishment; it's a temporary stay to get our zoning corrected," a commissioner said.

Opponents said a moratorium is a heavy remedy that requires documented findings of immediate danger or irreparable harm, public notice and facts to support the restriction. "You only impose a moratorium when there is a clear and present danger of irreparable harm," Commissioner Nicholson said, referencing case law and prior moratorium experience.

Commissioners also raised concerns that a 90-day halt could unfairly block applicants and be seen as picking winners and losers in the energy market. Several commissioners proposed referring zoning concerns to planning and zoning for study and public hearings rather than adopting a short-term prohibition at the commission level.

Because the motion failed for lack of a second, the county did not adopt a moratorium on May 6. Commissioners agreed to remove the item from the consent agenda and to have further discussion; no binding planning directive or moratorium was enacted at the meeting.